Psychology

Here we will discuss human psychology science and technology. Note the biblical focus stuff should go in the Biblical forum, and the psychiatry conspiracy and health concerns stuff in the Health forum. Here we want only to discuss the orthogonal (to the degree that it is) science of the human mind.

Some thoughts about psychology and physiology limitations of declarative inductive minimization logic. This is an easy, concise layman's read:

http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2009-October/068380.html
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2009-October/068381.html

Email discussion from Thu, October 13, 2005 7:58 am:

anonymous wrote:
> fyi - The common denominator of a group (any group) is the "reactive mind"
> (agreed upon misconceptions and altered perceptions). There is such a
> thing as group agreement. Sane individuals, without a reactive mind of
> their own, or with a growing awareness of the effects of own
> mis-perceptions, have different resoponses to things, while the group
> member who is not self determined will agree upon only the group's
> reactive primciples. The marxist pshchlogists knew this and they built
> their "empires" upon the principle that "the group is all & the individual
> is nothing". That principle permeates most of society globally today.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 10/12/2005 at 9:09 PM shelby wrote:
>
>>100% agreed that failure in life is induced by the reduced capacity to
>>perceive (all in environment), due to "self-protection" notions that
>>accumulate (even groupwise in society).
>>
>>We must constantly renew our emotions and thinking to a baby-like state,
>>in order to continue to prosper to our potential.
>>
>>This logic is exactly opposite of what we are taught about
>>"responsibility", "disease", "knowlegde", etc..
>>
>>The smartest person is the person who "knows nothing", but wants to
>>investigate/experience everything.
>>
>>The stupidest person is the one who "knows everything".
>>
>>
>>anonymous wrote:
>>> cool! (to have agreement)
>>>
>>> I had stated that the mind is not the brain. This, while true, is not
>>> necessisarily true for everyone. There are people who stick parts of
>>> their mind into the brain. You've seen 'em. They have large
>>> portruding
>>> foreheads and actuall mass accumulated on the head. Then there are
>>> those
>>> who specialize in sticking people's minds into their brains. They are
>>> commonly referred to as psychiatrists and psychologists! What they
>>> specialize in is forcing a person's attention upon his brain and body,
>>> when it is much more therapeutic to coax a person to be able to put his
>>> attention outward upon his environment. The source of a person's
>>troubles
>>> are not within cells, they are in his inability to perceive what is
>>really
>>> there in his environment. Increase a person's ability to perceive, his
>>> ability to look, his judgement, etc, and the result is increased
>>> awareness, knowledge and ability to solve problems.
>>>
>>> Trouble with a co-worker? Trouble with the spouse? Trouble sleeping?
>>> Social difficultiies? Solutions lay in the person's ability to view
>>> the
>>> trouble for what it is and not buy what another tells him is the cause.
>>> Nobody can solve a problem for somebody else. An individual inherently
>>> rejects solutions give to him. Why? because he already has solutions.
>>> He has a hundred solutions that don't work. He knows this. What he
>>> really needs is more problems, afterwhich his present difficulties
>>> appear
>>> minor by comparison.

Something from an email on Wed, May 23, 2007 1:05 am:



> When you say you are safe with God, I assume you mean your soul is safe,
> not your physical body.


Yes. That I need not fear time, as it is just a single dimension of the
infinite dimensions of the universe. (an agnostic way of explaining it)


> You must believe that you are vulnerable to the
> same maladies and risk death and injury as your fellow humans?


Yes.

> That is
> what I meant, that your family is concerned for you as they should be for
> themselves and each other since we all are vulnerable in one way or
> another. I think we should try to discover what those vulnerabilities are
> and take whatever precautions may be reasonable.


The agnostic society has this perspective, which is why they fall into the
trap of fearing time, fearing the natural, and thus the waste of enormous
energy on insurance, health care, strong fortress nest, etc...which is why
the cabal can last much longer than you expect, because the entire mankind
is willing to put their entire energy into avoiding God (fearing time).

And so now finally you see that I am not the one who is crazy

>
> My guess about your manic tendencies was not just Stein Report. It was
> also based on your descriptions of periods when you labored so intensively
> to grasp a a subject that you deprived yourself of sleep.


Afaik, Jesus often deprived himself of sleep.

When it becomes counter-productive (becomes an obsession), then it is not
efficient, and not desireable. You see I did manage my way through a
morass where I had no place to live. For one thing I didn't want to spend
$ at that time, because everything (other than China made goods) in USA is
way overpriced relative to it's value (my investable net worth
appreciation was not much higher than the potential expenses at that
time), so I knew I would get a lot of sleep when I got back to
Philippines, where services are cheap and more fairly valued. In future,
it will be a good time to sleep in USA and to have a nice place to sleep
there (when assets are crashed to free market value). But I did work out
a way to sleep for fair (global free market) value in tent on the beach in
California. Part of the problem was I did not want to commit to a 6 month
lease, so that severely limited my options, and thus for a couple of
months I was living with my sister's husband (and his brother who is a
crack addict), who is on lithium and other meds. At the same time, I was
trying to develop a new working relationship with SilverStockReport.com,
while trying to sort out my existing ongoing business CoolPage.com.

There were probably also hangover blowbacks from non-Biblical paths I had
taken in my past, which I have been slowly working my way out of, over the
past year (at least).

It may be easy for people who are well organized within the current fiat
system to judge manic/polypolar those who have been searching for
something else. But this is a change coming, and IMHO eventually when the
cabal finally dies, the diversity of thought (what today is called mental
illness) will be a potential gene pool for some of the survivors.

It will be interesting to see your reflection on this, with your
scientific basis in cognitive research.


> There were a
> few other minor indications. You should ignore the unnecessary stigma our
> society places on people with characteristics that lie at the far ends of
> the bell curve.

Thank you.


> The drive for conformity is primal, not rational. I
> don't really think people are simply manic or not manic. It should be
> more properly thought of as a continuum.

Agreed, and perhaps a multi-dimensional space (maybe not even continuous
one in all domains...if we want to get into pure mathematical discussion
of possible models).



> The important thing is that you
> can function optimally in your environment despite the outlier tendencies.


Thank you for the compliment, although I don't know how to define
"optimal" in this context. Each of us functions, and you might agree it
is mistake is to assume that someone's "lower" level of functioning is
"lower" in every possible dimension of the universe?


> I am probably slightly abnormal in the "mania" category in the other
> direction since I am unusually calm and overly reflective.


That is also a very interesting trait. I appreciate it. I want to try to
love all traits. I have been trying to develop my understanding and love
of the cabal.

Also I have to continually rebalance my posture, as due to my extremetism,
I have often had to defend myself against attacks, and so I have to
continually remember to readjust my posture away from offensive defensive,
back to a civil stance. As you know, any extreme action (without
sufficient dampening that you have), leads to a lot of blowback ripples
(differential equations).



> Sometimes it
> takes me an extraordinary amount of time to formulate a plan of action
> that I am satisfied with.


And that can also be counterproductive on the other extreme. There is no
free lunch in the free market. We are all competing with individual
decisions.


>
> Our contrasting views on the evolutionary advantages of venturing out seem
> to be mostly a product of using terms that are too loosely defined. I
> hold that my statements were factually true and based on very good
> analyses coming from the field of evolutionary biology. We are probably
> referring to different variables or a different context. Time scale is
> important and so is the distinction between a group of hunter gatherers
> following prey or expanding their foraging area versus that of a single
> individual striking out to see if the grass is greener on the other side
> of the savannah. It also is important to define the size of the group or
> community. Mu graduate level courses on evolutionary biology used
> hundreds of variables and equations to explain various evolutionary
> phenomena, but there are still striking patterns of development that can
> be unambigously interpreted and that is what I was referring to.


That is very interesting and enlightens me more to your basis. I will
agree that aliasing error is a constant in life, so we can't reconstruct
our signal, if we don't know the bandwidth (range of possibilities) in the
signal. This is why statistics will miss a Long Tail phenomena, and why
any scientific study is always incomplete relative to God (the infinite
signals/dimensions of the Universe).



>
> Thanks again for the fascinating discussion.


Ditto

>
> BTW, you and Jason are the voices of reason in the linked thread. My take
> is that Goldplugger is too conditioned to recognize that he is
> rationalizing his love of money*.


I am trying not to pass judgement (do I know all sides of the man?), but
if I allow myself to analyze then there is a similar sampling so far.

Jason has the remarkable ability to be both extremely damped/reflective
(as you), yet also explore "extreme" (unconventional/contrarian) theories.
I have sought to learn and mimick his style to the degree it fits my
desire to as naked as possible to Truth. Sometimes when I think I am
being naked, I am actually defending some consternation, which is a trap I
must try to avoid (again some of it can be learning how to adapt from
being a target). Jason has a lot more experience than I do with posting
to public forums. If you do some Google searches, you will find he was
more reactionary several years ago (he was younger and single also then).
So there is hope for me to conform more


> He also does not understand
> mathematical concepts of limits to growth or the idea that you cannot take
> more resources out of a system than it can replenish under natural cycles
> without undermining the entire system - those exquisite feedback
> mechanisms in nature are there for a purpose. Goldplugger's time horizon
> is very short indeed.


I think he may understand it, but again I think as you said, it he very
young apparently (20s) and perhaps focused on short-term. It is something
interesting that if he is truely in his mid-20s, that is already some sort
of multi-millionaire as he claims...and you can extrapolate from there...

If he bought enough physical gold & silver now, he would probably be faced
with owning 0.1 - 1% of the world's wealth in a decade. I think Jason
will be faced with that. So Jason may have to deal with the philosophical
question. Buffet apparently decided to offload the question to Bill
Gates. Buffet bought 129 million oz of silver in 1997, so he apparently
realized the only way he could continue to grow past the fiat system...but
he was faced with the purported threat "if you compete with us, we will
put your insurance companies out of business", so he threw in the towel I
think...


>
> * Take for example his excuse that he makes his 20% tithe. If I rob a
> store and then give all that money to a church or charity is that going to
> be a net gain for society? If the economic system is corrupted and I
> profit from that system and then make a contribution that does not imply
> that that system is healthy or productive or a net benefit to society. I
> could go on and on and deconstruct Goldplugger's argument but I am certain
> you have the same insights.


Well I will say it irritated me that he called Ray Demotte of Sterling
Mining (largest not-yet producing silver mine in USA) an asshole on the
phone and that he relished that the CEO of Timberlane humiliated Ray at a
show... but I've tried to block that out and remain objective to what he
brings to the forum and to mankind...

Yes I think it is counterproductive to add more friction to the system,
because fiat (debt) is a just a friction and those missionary churches are
mostly just a farce, because the poor are poor because they get drunk
every night and use debt, instead of saving and investing the product of
their labor... it is socialist society so the missionaries are just
adding to the socialism by giving free handouts to the children and women
while they spend their own resources drinking rum and coconut wine...

well I don't know every country in 3rd world, but I've seen enough to know
it is mostly the same type of story every where....

So yes I don't think that giving to charity for tax breaks is productive
in many cases, but look everything is upside down as long as we measure
and judge success with dishonest fiat (debt)money.

Etc...

Great discussion. Thanks.


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Shelby Moore
> To: anonymous
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:29 AM
> Subject: Re: How well do we know ourselves?
>
>
> You may find this discussion of entropy limitations interesting:
>
> http://jasonhommelforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13984#post13984
>
> Perhaps can correct or add?
>
> below....
>
>
> > Shelby, I'm sorry it took so long to send you my reply but I was
> almost
> > finished with my response when I had to stop to take care of an
> urgent
> > matter and then it just lingered in my drafts column.
> >
> > First of all, thank you for the compliment of sharing my thoughts
> with
> > other readers. I think one of the greatest gifts we can give each
> other
> > is the sharing of knowledge and ideas.
> >
> > As regards the evolutionary drive for humans to form small groups, I
> > believe the inescapable conclusion must be that due to the dynamics of
> our
> > triune brain and our limited capacity for memory smaller groups are
> better
> > suited to optimize the integrity and cohesion of the community.
> >
> > Your impulse to live in a small self-reliant community is very
> rational
> > both on the evolutionary scale and in light of the deteriorating
> > conditions of modern society necessary if a person wants to live a
> life
> > that does not force them to compromise their most fundamental ethical
> > principles.
> >
> > "I suppose it is also an evolutionary trait that we must branch out
> from
> > our small groups periodically in order to replenish the gene pool and
> for
> > other reasons when the opportunity for gain exceeds the risk of
> venturing
> > out."
> >
> > Generally the risk of venturing out of your niche greatly exceeds any
> > benefit you may receive.
>
>
> This seems to be true in terms of coping (Asian culture being an
> extreme
> example of these effects you describe below, due to lesser ice age
> intrusion/survival challenges). Whereas I think those cultures which
> have
> been forced to branch our more, not to cope as often, are more
> resilient
> and competitive in face of changing environment, and also more
> productive,
> more creative, etc.. Thus I have to disagree. And I think this ties
> into
> what people perceive about me being "bipolar" or "manic"...below...
>
>
> > This assumes the niche is stable and the group
> > inhabiting the niche has established an equilibrium (births vs.
> deaths,
> > consumption, etc.). Assuming there is no founders' effect involved,
> the
> > gene pool in a small community provides sufficient variability to
> avoid
> > deleterious genetic combinations and the normal rate of mutations
> provides
> > additional variability. Over tens of thousands of years regional
> groups
> > of humans have developed small genetic differences that optimized
> their
> > chances of survival for that particular environment (e.g. sickle cell
> > anemia in regions with high levels of malaria). Also, bonding
> (oxytocin
> > release) with other humans is stronger when there is a shared culture
> and
> > similar physical characteristics. Therefore, small group cohesion is
> > still rather important in various ways.
> >
> > I suppose your family has some legitimate concerns worrying about
> your
> > safety.
>
>
> Then they do not trust God, which is imho the fundamental problem in
> the
> family.
>
> I am always safe with God, no matter what.
>
>
> > You do seem to have something of a bipolar profile. I did notice
> > the hypomania and given the nature of your sister's passing there is
> a
> > higher probability that you are at risk for bipolar behavior.
> > If you know
> > yourself, then you can overcome any obstacles such idiosyncracies may
> > impose. For example, your mania would steer you to be overconfident
> in
> > your conclusions
>
>
> I have tried in my life being underconfident (always doubting myself,
> God,
> etc), overconfident, etc... I am at the point in my life right now,
> where
> what it means to be centered is to understand that none of matters, as
> long as I understand the truths in the Bible, which have never been
> proven
> false in 1000s of years. As my grandfather said, Jesus is a rock of
> Gilbralter to stand on, and the fact that the main points of the Bible
> are
> infallible is enough witness for me.
>
> As for "mania", for example running from the SteinReport.com and being
> very emphatic about my departing statements, it was because I learned
> that
> most of that Stein is trying to do runs counter to the teachings of the
> Bible (free trade) and the laws of nature (entropy). It is an
> extremism
> based in logic, although it is so forceful that it can be perceived as
> a
> "mania". Semantics I suppose. It is a mental condition and for me I
> think a healthy one, again I don't measure my success with dishonest
> metrics (e.g. paper wealth, an insured cocoon existence, etc). I like
> the
> chance of God, and the uncertainty of this physical world. I can die
> tomorrow.
>
>
>
> > and not reflective enough but being aware of this it
> > seems that you work to confirm your information using various
> channels.
>
>
> I am still questioning and any one who knows me deeply (not just
> through
> written words), knows that I am working many angles in my head
> continuously. Like all of us, I am limited by time and my mental
> bandwidth.
>
>
> > On the depression side, even though you have become aware of the
> inherent
> > corruption in our current social system and the inherent dangers this
> > poses, you seem to cope by looking for solutions for yourself and
> your
> > family and try to help others along the way. That is all that any of
> us
> > can do. I have confidence that you will overcome any obstacles that
> come
> > your way.
>
>
> Coping is not my goal I suppose. That is really good way to summarize
> my
> "mania". Anyone measuring with an earthly lense, will see the mismatch
> between God and earth, as "bipolar", but this is aliasing error,
> because
> they are not sufficiently sampling the signal.
>
>
> >
> > You are very intelligent, hard working, compassionate, principled,
> fair,
> > and honest. I am certain that whatever small community you finally
> settle
> > in you will be instantly recognized as a valuable asset and a great
> > teacher.
>
>
> Thank you! And your information retention is impressive. I think I
> understand now that I have very strong short-term memory and
> multi-dimensional processing abilities, and I would guess that you have
> a
> brain like a library that rarely forgets any details, which would
> explain
> why you can be such a good detailed researcher. I am an idea person or
> an
> inventor.
>
> Btw, I fully acknowledge that everything I wrote here could be wrong
> and
> will continue to question all the statements herein. I am just trying
> to
> understand (myself, etc)...
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Shelby
> Moore
> > To: anonymous
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: How well do we know ourselves?
> >
> >
> > What is your reaction to the fact that I anonymously
> published
> > the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of what you wrote below? That synopsis
> is
> > the
> > best (by far) I have read on the topic.
> >
> > The way I deal with uncertainty (fear?) is to try to increase my
> > understanding (decrease my uncertainty). Seems I deal with my fear
> > rationally in many cases. I don't think the motivation is greed,
> > because
> > my aspirations for power are minimal to the extent to goal of
> living
> > efficiently in a small group. And that now explains to me very
> well,
> > why
> > I have been planning and working on achieving such
> pseudo-isolationism
> > (small efficient groups). I suppose it is also an evolutionary
> trait
> > that
> > we must branch out from our small groups periodically in order to
> > replenish the gene pool and for other reasons when the opportunity
> for
> > gain exceeds the risk of venturing out. Explains very well my life
> > patterns. Very, very interesting that I am more rational than I
> was
> > lead
> > to believe. My own family have tried to characterize my actions as
> > unstable or even bipolar, but I think rather it is the result of
> trying
> > to
> > incrementally move towards that which requires a leap, because it
> is
> > almost impossible to achieve these days, and thus one has to abort
> > often.
> >
> > Back to the thinking of cabal, I think they have planned for the
> > ultimate
> > failure of centralized control, by instituting a "scorched earth"
> > capability where they can wipe out all but those who are compliant
> > (drugged, tagged, mind controlled, etc..). This is a very scary
> > reality
> > coming soon, and I think this showdown is covered in the Book of
> > Relevations in the Bible.
> >
> > Yes agree that nature == God, so laws of nature == laws of God. I
> > don't
> > need to differentiate science from God, except when science purports
> to
> > know everything (know God entirely).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Shelby, thanks for sharing that fascinating discussion! I often
> try
> > to
> > > observe people wrestling with these issues to gauge how well "the
> > masses"
> > > are able to escape their programming.
> > >
> > > Having studied this phenomenon for many years, I truly believe
> that
> > > although the power elite control our major information sources
> and
> > have
> > > mastered conditioning techniques, they are still going to lose
> ground
> > > because the hard-wired responses in humans are a double-edged
> sword.
> > On
> > > the one hand it is to their advantage that ancient and powerful
> > drives
> > > such as fear and greed generated by our amydalae always influence
> the
> > > rational thought process going on in our prefrontal cortex.
> Using
> > > detailed knowledge of this process can make the manipulation of
> > humans
> > > relatively easy. On the other hand and in opposition to their
> agenda,
> > is
> > > our neurogenetically based desire to live in small cooperative
> groups
> > for
> > > protection and survival. The first drive is older and more primal
> and
> > the
> > > second is part of our evolutionary legacy that became a turning
> point
> > in
> > > shaping the modern human - it is at the very core of our essence
> of
> > being
> > > homo sapiens and paleoneurology/molecular genetics research
> > demonstrates
> > > that this process started close to 2 million years ago and has
> > continued
> > > to be the predominant form of selective advantage until the
> industrial
> > era
> > > (which is why the elites had to seize control of the education
> process
> > and
> > > use it to train obedient dumbed-down workers - they need to
> > re-condition
> > > people from their natural inborn tendencies).
> > >
> > > Mass enslavement goes against both human design (I would say
> human
> > > evolution) and the laws of thermodynamics requiring massive
> amounts
> > of
> > > energy inputs to maintain an unnatural system. Hence, someone
> using
> > a
> > > very long time horizon can safely argue that the cabal is working
> > against
> > > the laws of nature (you would say against God's laws). They are
> > trying to
> > > change nature itself to conform to their world views (genetic
> > manipulation
> > > of food, animals and humans; altering weather patterns; altering
> > major
> > > ecosytems and the exquisite feedback mechanisms in nature;
> attempting
> > to
> > > reshape and redefine levels of human interaction, etc.). This is
> a
> > > reckless course brought on by extreme arrogance and hubris. It
> > appears
> > > that the elite understand this on some level but have decided
> hedonism
> > for
> > > the here and now and a wild gambit to prolong their reign is going
> to
> > be
> > > their priority. They have not only a socialization and selection
> > process
> > > for opportunism but very probably a behavioral genetic component
> for
> > > opportunism as well. This notion is supported by reports that
> groups
> > like
> > > the Rothchilds and the various lines of royalty have depended
> heavily
> > on
> > > intermarriage.
> > >
> > > I thought "Investor 123" made some excellent points. He
> correctly
> > > analyzed the problem of the masses being conditioned to believe
> they
> > have
> > > no choices. Which is true in that the choices "the system"
> offers
> > are
> > > false ones - not choices at all, but distractions. The hope
> > Catherine
> > > Austin Fitts and others have awakened many to is the kind of
> freedom,
> > > dignity, and personal responsibility that awaits those who can
> > > re-establish a natural system of human interaction.
> > >
> > > Shelby, try to understand your impulses to explore the thought
> > processes
> > > of the cabal. I have had the same thought experiments for many
> years.
> > My
> > > analytical nature and work in neuroscience has allowed me to
> readily
> > take
> > > their premises to their logical conclusions and understand their
> > rationale
> > > yet I never get sucked into the vortex and find commraderie with
> them
> > > because a frank examination of their mindset shows just how very
> dark
> > and
> > > self-serving their motives are.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Shelby
> > Moore
> > > To: anonymous
> > > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:55 AM
> > > Subject: How well do we know ourselves?
> > >
> > >
> > > http://jasonhommelforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13486#post13486

below...


anonymous wrote:
> Shelby, let me tell you a story. You may wish to save this file.


Filed for posterity & future reference


>
> In 1997, I met a very successful businessman, who was apparantly at the
> top of his game on the internet, who from his perspective, was merely
> "experimenting and having fun", since he already made his millions.
>
> He wanted to meet me, since I was his best online marketer, he wanted to
> pick my brain a bit, and I offered him all the useful things I knew
> about marketing on the internet at the time. You can guess the
> industry. Neither he, nor I, had a particular affinity for the
> industry, nor a long history in it, it was the only one going at the
> time in the new thing, the internet.


We all had to pay our dues doing something that wasn't our top preference.


>
> He gave me some advice, business advice, since he almost viewed me as
> one of his own sons. He said it was clearly evident that I was the kind
> of man who would be at the top of the industry in whatever industry I
> was to pursue later in life, since I was young at the time. 27, and he
> recognized much of my brilliance. I think I gave him about 5 big pieces
> of advice, and he follwed every single bit of it. I even re-wrote his
> main ad, that pulled so well, and converted so well, he made it
> mandatory for all of the people in his affiliate program. He also gave
> me much advice, a lot of it I listened to very carefully.
>
> He said that as I made my millions, I'd probably have a lot of hangers
> on, people who would simply expect me to pay for everything, the
> parties, the meals, etc. And to a certain extent, that's happened a
> bit, but not by much. I don't mind the honor of paying. And most
> times, when I travel to the shows, other people fight to buy me meals.


Where do you think a significant chunk of my roughly $800,000 in lifetime
earnings has gone?

But I misunderstood for middle years of my life, and thought I could buy
love. I am back on track now...


>
> He said that as I became successful, I'd need programmers, and I'd
> probably have a team of them, like he did. He gave me a lot of advice
> about programmers. He said that a good one could do what it would take
> 20 of the other best programmers could do.


I bet he had mostly "template-type" jobs with customization. Evolutionary
redundant/copycat stuff. For the very top revolutionary work (that no
template exists, has never been done b4), not even 2000 programmers can
replace the one who can do it. These projects are like babies to their
creators-- one of a kind.


> He said that if or when I
> found that top programmer, he'd be worth his weight in gold. He said
> many other things, too, particularly about that top programmer, and how
> to keep him happy.
>
> He said that the best programmers will plan a program for months, while
> researching the proper code. The would work out everything in their
> mind, in advance. And then, boom, coding time 18 hour days, 3-7 days at
> a time then boom, product!


I guess it is true, because I assume those were small projects he had.
Wiki is not so big. For big projects (e.g. P2P, Cool Page, WordUp,
Painter, etc), the programmer needs to be able to do that for months on
end instead of only 3-7 days at a time.


>
> He said to pretty much pay this top programmer whatever they asked. And
> to make sure they were taken care of in every way imaginable.


To a point, but too many toys and programmer will get distracted. I do my
best work when I am using the cheapest computer on the market. Literally
it is true. Everytime I buy a fancy computer that ends up being wasted
years farting around on unworkable business models. My best work has been
done with the crappiest tools. Because best work occurs in the mind, when
not distracted.



>
> He said that the top programmers would be socially stunted, emotionally
> challenged. That they are strong on logic, but emotionally weak. He
> thus said to take that into special consideration, and to be patient,
> and understanding.


Agreed, very high correlation to these attributes.

But for example, I am much less emotionally stunted than my mother's bf,
who isn't 1/20 of the programmer I am, even he has $millions in capital
and farts around full time (avoiding social life).

The geniuses at Fractal and one of the guys they hired after me who was
150+ IQ, imo all were less effective programmers than I am. Their code
was spagetti. But they were more talented in me on some raw thought
processes, yet I could unravel bug fixes from their convoluted code (I
remember finding 1 character in a massive maze of file for tiling the
paper grain). We were a good team.

What Fractal didn't understand was I am more social than they were. They
did not allow me to work virtually. I was in my late 20s and I wanted to
experiment socially, because I was on a quest to find God (truth) because
of my family issues.

They thought they could buy my youth, by offering me $1.2 million. I
walked away. That is when Tom told me I had a special talent, but never
come back unless I was sure I could stay (in jail). No way! I have a lot
more to learn about life, than just 1s and 0s. They misunderstood me,
just as your teacher misunderstood me. But I think you do understand me,
because you have the benefit of God's wisdom via the Bible.


>
> He said that I'd have to be patient, because a programmer would always
> be working on several projects at a time: they need to have or know what
> or where their next job will be, to have that security.


It is hard for a designer to have all that in his mind and also have
nonsense financial worries in his mind. I've tried to do both, and the
quality (intense depth of study) of design process suffers.



>
> He said that the top programmer will want to pursue his own projects,


True. For the creativity.


> even though they may fail, because the programmer lacks the business
> sense, due to not understanding other people well,


I break the mold here a little bit. Cool Page was successful because I
understood that people wanted to just drag+drop. I hit a homerun. Where
I failed was not knowing where to go from that simple and effective $500K
homerun. Had I known you in 2002, I would be farther along now.



> but to fund them
> anyway.


Google has "20% time" which means their programmers can use 1 day a week
to work on anything they want to. Most of their new products have some
from this "waste".


> The programmer's pet projects may fail because they lack the
> business sense to communicate with the masses; that they don't
> understand other people well due to their stunted emotional development.


I suffer from this but I also have some understanding of public, because
before college I was very, very normal guy. I goofed off, drank a lot of
beer, played sports well, had zillion friends, threw the best and most
crowded parties (Blazer 1 - 3 will never be forgotten by my classmates...I
can tell you some stories!)...etc...

I did all the bad things too, such as stealing 3 shopping carts full of
beer from Target and racing down the highway to my Dad's house in Culver
city, putting it all in freezer, and then dumping into pool and having a
Blazer party!

I'll never forget the guy who feel in between the fence and the bamboo
covering and was so stoned he didn't know where he was or how to get out!
Hahaha!

Boy those were fun times.... I have a very normal side, but I also have
another side...



>
> I understood these descriptions well, because on the scale, I'm more a
> math guy than a people/verbal guy. 730 on my math/analytical, 600
> verbal on my SAT's and GRE's, same scores!


760/520

The first time I took it drunk and scored 100 points lower.

I don't think the SAT math tests the area of design where my IQ is most
highly tuned. It is hard to test the ability to "visualize ideas in
head". There always people quicker than me in math. I was usually #3 - 5
in college math courses out of entire section (e.g. 300 students). But in
terms of designing new things, I am more rare.

If I remember the verbal was broken down into categories and my
comprehension was very high. I was very low on vocabulary and word games
sort of stuff (fill in blanks, etc). My brain is not high above average
in sparse long-term memory. But very good in localized, short-term memory
(comprehension).


>
> I also understood these descriptions because my little brother is a
> programmer, and he's less social.
>
> Back to the final things the businessman told me.
>
> He said to not tell the programmer the things he told me, that I just
> told you now.


He underestimated the complexity of emotional makeup of a programmer. I
think the best ones are slightly more diversified than being lopsided
robotic, easily deceived/childlike/naive.


>
> He also said to string that programmer along, so that they would not get
> their independence, but to keep that top programmer dependent, so he
> will continue to be useful.


Remember my father is a shrewd businessman and attorney. A small portion
of it rubbed off on me. He sort of forced me.


>
> It is on this last two points that I obviously disagree with the man who
> gave me so much advice, and to whom I gave so much advice, most all of
> which he took!


Thank God!


>
> But I write all of this, to let you know how much I appreciate you. I
> appreciate you to the extent that you fit the description that was given
> to me, so much, it's almost scary! Meaning, that you are worth your
> weight in gold, far more than you are charging me.


It is amazingly well correlated fit to his predication. Errie.

>
> I write all this to let you know that my goal is not to string you
> along, but to help you achieve that independance, to help you make your
> millions.


Ditto. Well $billions and more importantly help you to have a wider
communicative impact.

I saw early on that you biggest need was to increase your reach and
increase reach efficiency. So I knew you would be well fit to such a
project, but then I had to find a project. From the [deleted word] idea, the better
idea fell into my lap.

Is that not a wise businessman? I targetted and cultivated you.

It was not my intention when I first arrived at your site. I noticed your
site from Google search back in 2005. But I decided it was too risky
because I didn't know enough yet. So I invested in silver majors instead
with my big win being Glamis buyout.

Then I realized I needed to move smaller cap, which brought me to your
site. Then my brain followed the "path of least resistance" to where we
are now.

See attached for some other ideas I had in past year which are not any
where near as good as the P2P one. The Hyperlink one was trying to think
of a way to encorporate pay-per-click ads into optimizing link relevance
for every link on the web!! Unfortunately the only revenue model I could
think of which would hold up against Google would be a patent. Bad idea!

Also see attacked a photo of my sister and I when infant. I was looking
for a photo of me like 1 year old, doing engineering work on a building
blocks set, so you could see I was sort of born designer. But it is on my
computer in PI.



>
> To that end, to not string you along, and to help your project, I think
> your project, the P2P, may need my help more than I realized before, and
> maybe more than you know or want to admit now.


Remember I told you that about 1 week ago. Go back into our emails, you
will see I wrote that.


>
> To that extent that this advice that I was given has been shown to be
> nearly prophetic, I propose that for your P2P project to be fully
> successful, (and not a wasted side project) it needs careful attention
> and consideration, and maybe even help from a successful businessman,
> like myself, or even a man who is better than me.


Exactly! I know it needs that! You enjoy focusing on the mass
communication side and I enjoy more the design. But it is not as though I
am totally obvious to the business side. I have created successful
businesses, but you are more efficient on that side. You created more
business and faster than I did.



>
> I'm an investor, and good marketer, not so much a businessman.


Ok if you define businessman as not being a marketer and investor then
perhaps, but I think you are a very efficient businessman.


> My own
> weakness is in hiring people, managing people, even though I was a
> manager of a restaurant. I was a bad manager, as I have the tendency to
> piss people off, and keep them at a distance, even you.


It makes you more efficient though. Better to have a few core people
around you, and delegate to them to hire and fire the rest.

Finding those few core people is a very important job. Every very
successful businessman has those core cohorts, e.g. Buffet and
whatshisname, Gates+Balmer, etc.


> I'm more of a
> prophet than a pastor, and they are two different offices. The prophet
> calls people to repent. The pastor helps pep people up, and helps to
> council them. The prophet pisses people off, the people don't listen to
> the prophets very often. So, I try to write more like a pastor, I try
> to be encouraging, and to council people.


I am too much scolding prophet. You are very correct. I was learning
this recently in my dealings with people, to be less hard-core logical and
put a "good feeling" spin on it. Take the positive outlook...

You and are a lot alike, although we have different specializations. Your
specialty is much more on the big picture side, and mine is more detailed
on the design side. I am a dreamer, you are the realist?



>
> Let us not let our weakness get in the way. Let's consider the benefit
> to hiring a man who can hire all the people necessary to make the P2P a
> success. We need a business builder, an extremely social, very socially
> adept, socially savvy and wise, manager's manager, company executive
> president type.


Yes there will come a time we need that. But I think that would slow us
down right now.


>
> If you are 800 on the SAT Math, and 500 on the verbal (and of course,
> your verbal skills are outstanding),


Close


> we need a guy who is 800 on the
> verbal/social/business/pastor/hiring/managing side of things, but maybe
> only 500-600 on the math. In that way, we will be more successful, and
> will help to ensure our success.


Excellent point.

As well, eventually to hire someone who is higher IQ than me in pure
algorithmic math. As they can optimize my work further. I will produce
something that is balanced to work and generate $, but I won't produce the
tweaks to the Google algorithm. They hired best and brightest to come in
for that. But that is later stage anyway. I will just be a consultant or
VP to the company by that time.


>
> But overall, I'm also extremely impressed by your ability to communicate
> with the masses and understand the masses. After all, you have a
> tremendous ability to make things very easy for people with your user
> interface, coolpage, and so far with the wiki.


Yes I always saw this made me different than most top programmers. I can
programmer interfaces. Thanks for recognizing that.


>
> Anyway, this is just a story, hopefully a story with lessons to be
> learned, mixed with thoughts and ideas on how we will be more successful
> than we already are, which is a lot.


Amazing. Seems to much like destiny.


Attachments:

FlexCanvas Algorithm.rtf 6.7 k [ text/richtext ]
Hyperlink Relevance Optimization Via Instant Auction Competition.rtf 35 k [ text/richtext ]
Shannon_newborn_Shelby_in_bed_Aug_1969.jpg 36 k [ image/pjpeg ]

If you want to get into the evils of Psychiatry, we have another thread for that:

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/health-f5/epidemic-of-psychiatry-t31.htm

History:

http://thegoldspeculator.blogspot.com/2009/10/depression.html

Actually it is not photographic instantaneously (from the eyes) such as my former boss Tom Hedges who could purportedly memorize all the names and phone numbers on a page in the white pages by looking at it for a few seconds.

However, it is such that if I write a few screens of code, then I can sleep and still remember the code well enough to rewrite it from scratch nearly as fast as I can type.

I lost some code last night because the Baseline Shield on my computer erased it when the computer rebooted due to power outages. I had it set to disable restores, but it did not honor the setting. I was able to quickly reconstruct the code from memory. Any way, now I will remember to store my files in the exemption (from restores) drive. Here is the code I quickly recalled from memory:

Code:

// Returns
//  {
//      names      : code ordered array of rule names,
//      terminals  : array of terminals,
//      rules      : { rule name : array of rule lines (cases), each split into array of tokens with terminals replaced by index }
//      branches    : { rule name : sparse array of [rule name, lineno] branches for terminals }
//  }
// branches parsing table is described here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LL_parser&oldid=339160044#Set_up
// Note, [rule name, lineno] is equivalent to the rule number in Wikipedia example.
function CompileBranches( s )
{
    var o = ParseRules( s );
    o.branches = {};
   
    function RuleBranches( name, lines )
    {
        var terminals = [];
        lines.forEach(
            function( a, lineno )
            {
                while( 1 )
                {
                    var token = a.shift();
                    if( typeof token == 'number' )                                  // Terminal index?
                    {
                        if( terminals[token] ) ThrowNotLL1( name, o.terminals[token] );
                        terminals[token] = [name, lineno];
                        break;
                    }
                    var rule = TokenToRule( token );
                    var t = RuleBranches( rule, o.rules[rule] );
                    t.forEach(
                        function( a, i )
                        {
                            if( terminals[i] ) ThrowNotLL1( name, o.terminals[i] );
                            terminals[i] = a;
                            o.branches[name][i] = a;
                        }
                    );
                    if( !IsTokenOptional( token ) ) break;
                }
            }
        );
        return terminals;
    }
   
    RuleBranches( 'S', [o.names[0]] );
    return o;
}


function ThrowNotLL1( name, terminal )
{
    throw "Not LL(1), duplicate left-most descending paths from rule " + name + " to terminal " + terminal;
}


function IsTokenOptional( s )
{
    s = s.charAt( s.length - 1 );
    return s == '?' || s =='*';
}

I am not sure if I had this capability at birth or young age. I also noticed that (perhaps more frequently recently) some of my epiphenies come right when I wake up, as if my mind is solving problems in my sleep.

I am not mentioning this to brag, but simply because I am amazed when I have any unusual mental performance, because I never tested higher than about 128 - 138 IQ (above average but not genius) and I never viewed myself as having an exceptionally fast mind (at least not in a social setting where one can impress others). I have often wondered what my talent is, so I would know where to focus my efforts in life.

I do note that all IQ tests tend to point to me having an exceptional visual mathematics capability. I think what I am good at is boiling down to the conceptual essence of a matter, if given a large space of variables. In other words, I can store a solution space and process it down to the local and global minima. So apparently I am able to recall a solution space (all the variables) after having solved it once already. So my memory is not photographic from the eyes, but rather it is photographic of the solution and solution space that my mind has already mathematically worked with and visualized. I think this is what makes me a good teacher. I remember as a child I would enjoy doing visualizations of scenarios and outcomes in my head while laying in bed to prepare to sleep. It was my way of dreaming about interesting things. I think this is what made me a good football player. I would envision the night before all the possible scenarios and what my reactions would be. Then during the game everything would slow down ("being in the zone") and it was as if everyone else was in slow motion and I could react to everything faster than they could. I wasn't always in the zone, but those times where I was, I could do some amazing things, such as an interception or split 3 lead blockers to make a solo tackle.

I am sure many people have this capability. From there personality differences matter, such as one's interests and thus focus and experience. For example, I wasn't nearly as good of a basketball player, because I never much enjoyed thinking out scenarios for shooting (girls can often shoot more accurately than guys), which physically is the only aspect of basketball that I could possibly excel since I don't have the height (nor vertical leap at my height, max was about 33-36") for dominating near the basket. Football has so many varied moves that I am capable of doing, but I have lost interest it for the most part by 44.5. What interests me most now in sports is simply accomplishments of stamina, strength, speed, and thus keeping my body young.

With drugs, sensory torture, the govt can make a 2nd personality and make you do things you won't remember:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x77rfzndhI8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPldhZd-sHo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSS-HshUMkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGDE79pCqCU

See the complex pattern matching... (end of ___) only fits certain possibilities...

I meant to write 'end of file' and I wrote 'end of life' instead. Granted I am trying to code while nearly falling asleep.

Any way, I think I understand better the brain paradigm that causes this. My brain is wired in parallel to see all the permutations of something. And if my vocabulary and grammar engine is not running at full speed, my massively parallel pattern matching engine can sneak one past it. This explains why these austistics often have exceptional pattern matching abilities, but they can't control the ordered narrowing of sets that interface with society. I often find my concept mind is moving way too fast for my language I/O engine.

U.S. & World
Early Warning Report
By Richard Maybury
March 2010
Page 6 of 8

I often comment that political power corrupts the
morals and the judgment. It’s not just an editorial
observation. Scientists are beginning to study what
politics does to a person’s mind.
In controlled experiments which divide volunteer
test subjects into two groups — the more powerful
and the less powerful — researchers are finding that
“the ‘powerful’ who had been primed to believe they
were entitled to their power, readily engaged in acts
of moral hypocrisy.” Having power makes people
feel special, so they believe they don’t need to obey
the same rules as the rest of us. 8
Wow, big surprise.
But, it’s nice to know science is proving the
American founders were right when they created a
Constitution intended to severely limit political
power.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Power corrupts because entropy is an exponential function. One either needs to find an alternative exponential growth strategy, than the one which is so easily the path of least resistance. So it is a function of nature and entropy and trend of the universe exponentially towards maximum disorder. The key to avoid corruption is to always seek out a path which is even lower path of resistance to exponential growth, than the seductive one laid out by the weaknesses of people under you, as these are a trap. The Bible says "be not surety for any man" or we enslave ourselves.

Even King Solomon was corrupted by his success and I think he was admonished for keeping several wives?

This is very important for me, because I think all of us can be corrupted by power. I had been thinking about how I would design the revenue model for my current software project, and I keep thinking of how if it gives me too much power, I will abuse it and thus kill its potential.

I think the Bible teaches us about this, where it makes the point of the rich man who ignored the beggar and ended up in hell, and the how the lenders had no pity on the impoverished debtors.

We have to be unselfish in order to receive God's gifts. But many people think unselfish is pooling resources and pooling risk (laws, insurance, fiat money, banking, etc), which actually ends up being a group force, which is the opposite of unselfishness, freedom, and liberty.

>
> "We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as
> we remain honest -- which will be as long as we can keep the attention
> of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public
> affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors
> would all become wolves." Thomas Jefferson


Here is real-world current example:

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/health-f5/preparing-for-coming-crisis-t41-45.htm#2777

<--- click for article and to zoom it

http://jasonhommelforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=54303#post54303

yellowcaked wrote:

Shelby wrote:I have several hundred contacts in Philippines, and I can report that outsourcing is accelerating. Looks like AT&T has decided that to survive in the future, they must lower labor costs radically. Imagine what happens to the USA, when most jobs are exported to $300 per month venues. There are more people born each day in the Philippines, than call jobs are added. There is a near endless supply of cheap labor. The west will have to lower its standard of living to $300 per month wages (that is $2 per hour). That means either massive inflation in the west (dollar devaluation), or massive reduction in salaries. I think the former is what will happen, because it is politically expedient and feasible. The latter is impossible without riots ensuing.

I don't see how there could not be riots in either case... People here are not going to accept a drastic change in lifestyle just like the people of Greece and the thing here is that when we reach that point there in no one to bail the U.S. out.

The 1st option I presented, delays the potential riots.

Slow cooked frogs are less likely to riot, and instead it likely foments into a Weimer Germany suffering with a Hilter result to release the angst of the citizens on to the world:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21225.html

...Until reading Niall Ferguson’s brilliant The Ascent of Money, I never realized that welfare and warfare have gone hand in hand for over a century. The immortal German warmonger Otto von Bismarck was the first politician to introduce social insurance legislation in the 1880s. His reasoning was not strictly humanitarian. According to Bismarck, “A man who has a pension for his old age is much easier to deal with than a man without that prospect.” Bismarck was a shrewd politician who realized that when you provide people something for nothing, they will vote for you...


...The mindset of close to 50% of the U.S. population is exactly the same as the socialists in Greece. In the latest edition of The Casey Report reporter Jayant Bhandari describes the mindset of the entitled class:

“While sitting in a coffee-shop in Athens, I struck a conversation with a very smart-looking, confident girl while we sipped our rather expensive Euro 4 coffee. She was proud of spending time lying on the beaches and buying expensive clothes. By not taking on too much, she was contributing to the world’s peace and happiness. She claimed to be doing a good deed by spending money, which kept the economy going through increased money circulation. Saving money, she said, was bad, something only a selfish person would resort to.

“Fewer working hours mean work for other people and hence less unemployment,” she said. While I was thinking that she was likely a spoiled child of rich parents, she added, with bright, clear eyes, that the rich should be heavily taxed. Realizing something was missing, I couldn’t help but ask if she was on public assistance. Without a blink, with supreme confidence and a complete absence of any guilt, she said, “Yes.”

The reason she didn’t lie is because she did not feel an iota of guilt for being on dole. Those memes have been systematically annihilated. This is a life in complete contradiction to the natural principles. Not only does the educational system teach falsehoods, the machinations of the system are such that there are seemingly no consequences to misguided living.”

http://thegoldspeculator.blogspot.com/2009/12/real-love.html

...when Otto von Bismarck introduced the welfare state into western culture by submitting a program for socialized medicine to the German legislature in `1880-81, he called it his “Christian program.” (The words are his, not mine.) This is because the welfare state is based on the Christian idea that love is an obligation...

...What the Germans did during the period when they were preaching the obligation to love (1880-1920) was to suppress their emotions of hate (what a Freudian psychologist would call repression). As we all live life, we have incidents where we feel hate. And often this hate is perfectly justified...

...But what the Germans did (because of their philosophy that hate is inherently bad) was to suppress all their feelings of hate. This had two bad effects. The evil man who had caused the problem was not punished for his evil. He found that he could get away with it, and the Germans began to treat each other in nasty, unpleasant ways. Second, as the unacknowledged hate built up, the entire country of Germany came to the bursting point. This happened in the 1920s. What led the German people to vote for Hitler in 1933 was the fact that they themselves were full of hate (in this case an irrational hate), and they saw this quality in Hitler...

...n the same way, societies which fall in love have little use for alcohol or mind altering drugs. Life is so sweet that one wishes to experience it to the full. Any substance which interferes with the mind’s perception of reality is avoided. This, by the way, is true with regard not only to love but to all human endeavors. A person who is successful at dealing with life, whether it be in the field of romance, economics, the arts, the military, being liked by others, etc. will feel such a surge of happiness and power that one will want to experience life to the full. One will wish to see reality as it is...

http://thegoldspeculator.blogspot.com/2009/09/case-for-killing-granny.html

...When Lyndon Johnson rammed Medicare/Medicaid through a Democratic Congress in 1965, he had studied European health care systems. He knew that all of them killed people. All of these systems were imitating the German socialized medicine system, and Germany led the way by killing people who were expensive to treat...

...Given this terminology, in the 1930s the Germans – who had instituted socialized medicine in 1880 – decided it was getting too expensive. First, they tried withholding care. This was a half-hearted effort and was given up rather quickly. Then came the program of actively killing those most expensive to treat. This, of course, is state sponsored murder. That is, the government, formed (in part) to protect the right to life, was now engaged in cold-blooded murder. One after the other, European countries imitated Germany, and Germany kept expanding its murder program. More and more people were thrown into the killing machine with less and less connection with the idea of saving money, and finally the killing program became known as the Holocaust...

I made a proposal:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03837.html

I started this discussion with a post as "Jocelyn":

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2433#comment-275655

Read all that follows.

Eric blacklisted me, so I posted under a female name

And this one is very scientific :rolleyes:, it demonstrates our evolutionary fight or flight impulse in uncontrollabe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjzAqWkvkGU

This may seem like a narcissistic post, but I am genuinely trying to figure out what is the utility of the IQ and SAT tests, and what are the caveats.

I finally figured out what exactly is the type of genius IQ that I apparently have, and why it is not reflected entirely in my IQ scores (real IQ test in elementary, online IQ tests, SAT, ACT scores) which range from 128 - 138 (note on the 138 score I actually disagreed with the test on philosophy question, and I am correct, which would have put me above 140).

Specifically I have the ability to visualize and simplify relationships in my head, as if I am seeing them:

http://www.algebra.com/algebra/homework/equations/hilomath-visualization-1.lesson

I remember this started very young, where I would lay in bed before falling asleep and I could work out complex scenarios in my head, whether it be alternative possibilities for movie I had watched (especially those hated "Come back next week to see what happens") and even working out solutions to equations and math problems in my head. For example, I often do complex math in my head by factoring out the common roots, e.g. if you ask me to multiply two long numbers, e.g. 288 and 532, what I first do is multiply 200 x 500, then I add 80 x 500, add 8 x 500, etc..

There is a photo of me as an infant (1-2 years old?) constructing things with a plastic hammer and working out how the complex shapes of plastic toys can fit together or inside others, as well my Mom said I was the only child she knew that took all of his toys apart. What caused me to enter computers was I took apart my electronic games and ended up at a black chip with silver legs, and I went to Radio Shack to buy a book on digital logic so I could learn what those things do. That is probably not that unique among those who became engineers, but perhaps I am even more visionary than most of them, which is what I have generally found in my limited dealings with other engineers. There are few who were way out in the stratosphere, for example Adam who I worked on Poser at Fractal, but I can't remember his last name. He was all over the potential of nanotech back in 1995.

Contrast this against some of the kinds of IQ that you need to score very high on an IQ or SAT test:

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQbasics.htm
http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SAT.htm

* language ability: This could include the ability to complete sentences or recognize words when letters have been rearranged or removed.

I struggle with these, because these involve assimilating large stores of memory. Rather what my IQ excels at is working with a smaller set (10 to 100) of variables that describe a complex set of intersecting manifolds (solutions spaces). I excel in creativity, i.e. visualization of solutions or outcomes. I do not excel is storing large data sets and assimilating them, but I can do this above average (120s IQ), but no where near genius.

I also notice I have mild dyslexia, often spelling "must" as "much", typing words or letters in wrong order. Usually I catch these on 2nd reading. I think it is caused because my brain short-circuits (takes a short cut) when engrossed in relaying the solutions sets to the output, which inherently can not be not a bijective operation.

* spatial ability: the ability to visualize manipulation of shapes
* mathematical ability: the ability to solve problems and use logic

Example of my ability:

http://www6.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03857.html

See if you can solve this puzzle (I did in the above link):

"what is the area of the outer circle in terms of the defined distances?"

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3567&cpage=2#comment-317041

Shelby wrote:

The feminist accuser is privileged because "she" seeks social castration of the accused who has violated her right to equal everything. The accused lives without obligating others to confirm his right to his penis and testosterone. Fundamentally, "rights" are the antithesis of freedom. If equal distribution were possible, then perfection would be possible and nothing would exist, i.e. if the economic cost of arriving at 100% coverage of any natural phenomena were not asymptotically infinite. Put another way, knowledge requires (or is) degrees-of-freedom, thus the feminist is ignorance directed because "she" attempts to lower the degrees-of-freedom of the male, such that his actions must dovetail with her perceived rights. The distinction between rights and (social) harmony or resonance, is that the amount of power required to obtain work is proportional to friction, thus truly harming others is inefficient and ignorance directed. Tolerance unbinds and leads to greater diversity and more degrees-of-freedom.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3567&cpage=2#comment-317073

Shelby wrote:

Some of both sexes may perceive themselves vulnerable to economic rape by fascism that can evolve from statism. An armed citizenry is more effective than police who arrive even 1 second after ejaculation. Thus the female has a free market option that doesn't enslave herself in social force, which also does not bind the freedom of people who want to flirt and copulate. But for the feminist, preventing the rape is not enough and she is willing to sacrifice her own future freedom in exchange for preventing acts that lead to nature's intercourse, such as flirting with a sexy woman or being sexy.

Even amongst those who recognize that the centralized government is strangling us, and even those who see that fiat is a way to steal and control the people, they would advocate a centralized legal tender gold standard, or some kind of local enforcement of private banks competing to issue money (to try to regulate against the bank runs we had on fraudulent banks doing fractional reserves in the 1800s). In other words, they always think that somehow we need to prevent the people from hurting themselves. When in fact what we need is for people to not bind each other in centralized structures that have lower, or no degrees-of-freedom other than redistribution and theft.

I stated the problem is the Dunbar number limitation, where when a society grows larger than the number of people who can all know each other personally and anneal decision processes as numerous individual decisions in a free market, then decisions are made by proxy, because there is no information flow, i.e. there is no way to optimize the decisions so that everyone maintains their degrees-of-freedom. This proxy is created by the power vacuum, i.e. that power is needed because of the friction of competing interests in a large enough society where the Dunbar limitation prevents cognizant coordination of individual decisions.

Remember I stated that Copute could potentially overcome the Dunbar number limitations, i.e the number of people we can reliably know well enough to have an informed view of the functioning (or non-functioning) of the society (i.e. coordinated progress). The theory of Copute is to make knowledge fungible so that human societies mathematically perform more like ant colonies, where each ant is getting smarter due to the value of the networking effects, e.g. "Google is my external memory":

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/t112p135-computers#4264

Catherine Austin Fitts' (solari.org, former USA HUD undersecretary and WallStreet insider) did something conceptually similar with a program of community efficiency through maximization of resources based on the transparency of money flows using the computer information network she developed. Early results from the program promised phenomenal results for areas the size of small to medium size counties and could have been easily scaled up. As always, free information flow and absolute transparency are the key factors. Her program also had the promise of eliminating corruption, waste, fraud, and was putting people to productive work who otherwise would have been on unemployment or public assistance.

The key observation is that it enabled statistical information transparency, which enabled informed decisions, for more than just a small group that can know each other personally. But her paradigm failed politically, because its weakness is it required centralized or hierarchical (i.e. top-down) action, thus it was attacked and shut down.

Copute deviates in that each person contributes without concern or even necessary awarenes of what others might be doing (i.e. bottom-up), yet due to the technical foundations, these contributions do not bind each other and thus do not result in political gridlock. Copute in theory breaks through the Dunbar number limitation of coordinated progress. And it is impossible to attack and shutdown Copute. It is an idea, and the code is open source. Once it gets momentum, it is not easy for anyone to put a profitable idea and digitally copied code back in the bottle.

Also note, human behavior is more like pack animals than herd animals or lone predators. This is so hard-wired that humans will readily follow slick and untrustworthy leaders who use words to appeal to their emotions and is the reason organized religion and philosophy (including atheism, feminism, environmentalism, etc) has been so useful to the ruling elite. The only way this tendency can be effectively countered is with early education on how to think critically and independently - it will set the brain patterns for life.

On the positive note, as you have agreed, the elite are reaching the point of law of diminishing returns, so information flow is busting out all over the place, and they can not contain it. Those who don't avail of this information to free themselves (even from their vested interests, e.g. those reliant on food stamps, medicare, etc), will go down with the Titantic.

====================================
> BTW, Fitts' program was not part of a govt program, it was a private venture of her
> Hamilton Securities investment management firm - so, it didn't require centralized action
> or rely on govt funding but it did watch the flow of govt money into and out of the
> community and that was too much transparency for a criminal government.

Agreed that is what I meant by top-down. It required centralized collection of data and illuminated fraud and waste in the centralized system. Thus it required to make adjustments from the top-down, removing waste as seen from the top.

What I am proposing is a system that anneals from the bottom-up, without any one actually deciding or even knowing how it is annealing.

Free market systems have the quality that you can't actually see how they are optimizing, you only see the optimum results.

==========================
ADD

> Your method is too reductionist as if human beings and their societies can
> be adequately represented by equations. Not so, certainly not by the
> relatively crude methods we have to represent complex abstractions, many
> of which have only a marginal degree of being quantitative.
>
> Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, humans can rationalize
> murder because that level of violence is inherent in those parts of our
> central nervous system represented by the reptilian and mammalian brains.
> As you correctly make the point, the word "rights" has become overused
> and thus nearly meaningless. Classic liberal philosophy (basically
> Libertarians) contends that humans should be allowed to live their lives
> as freely as possible as long as they way they live their life does not
> impinge on the freedom of another. A physical attack violates this
> philosophy, irrespective of hormonal urges.

Please see my prior post where I discuss feminism.

Exactly what I wrote. It reduces the degrees-of-freedom of both the attacked and the attacker. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not fail to abstract-- it is the most fundamental quality of nature (because it follows directly from what is necessary to exist, as I have explained by explaining why nature can't be linear, equal, perfection, nor perfectly measurable, i.e. dimensioned).

The attacked will get more degrees-of-freedom (and not enslave themself by encouraging a centralized apparatus that naturally morphs to other issues, e.g. natural foods fascism), if they prevent that outcome by arming themselves, instead of expecting the police and government to protect them. Which btw is impossible, because the police are always at least 15 minutes too late. And the supposed comparatively greater deterrence for police versus a well armed citizenry is a lie if you look up the statistics.


> The gray area in the issue of minority "rights" to special or fair
> treatment (e.g. preference for hiring or admission to schools) is best
> handled by a like-minded community that decides to vote with its
> pocketbook and ostracization of those businesses and people who violate
> what that community considers to be socially reasonable behavior.

That doesn't work. Imagine I live in the community, the democracy passes a law that infringes my degrees-of-freedom, because it is not a 0 cost for me to move ex post facto. The society doesn't compensate me for their theft.

Redistribution via "rights" is theft, no matter how you slice it, because it decreases the degrees-of-freedom.

This is precisely why I am creating Copute, because you can never get away from people wanting to get something for free, by joining together. Precisely what 1 Samuel 8 says. The people are not satisfied to be one with God, they want to get together so the King can give them something (degrees-of-freedom) taken from the whole.

Why people want to enslave themselves? Ignorance.

> The
> fittest level of organization for humans is a meritocracy with a strong
> sense of compassion and voluntary assistance for those who are physically
> or mentally weaker.

Yes when the charity is done from individuals to other individuals by their their choice, not as an edict of the law for a collection of people of which less than 100% agree.

> A combination of efficiency and humane treatment
> generates a high level of dignity for the group, so better survival
> overall.

Indeed, that is why charity starts in the heart, and must not end up in the law.

> Doesn't the bible say something about being judged by how the
> least among us are treated? Of course, there is also the golden rule - do
> unto others and you would have them do unto you.


Most definitely. But each of us acting on our own choice to voluntary do things of our initiative actually increases the knowledge in the system, i.e. increases the degrees-of-freedom. If you instead codify this in law, it is always redistributive.

=========================================
=========================================
=========================================

> We seem to mostly agree here.
>
> I'd say though that you are hasty in believing shared community value cannot
> be effectively reinforced through peer pressure as I suggest. I didn't say law
> because law is really just a formality and layer of red tape of the same system
> of community level negative reinforcement directed at those who behave in a way
> that is fundamentally abusive to the rest of the community. I just used your ongoing
> example of the general idea of "rights" thinking in broader terms of, for example, a
> community shunning a member who cheats or abuses a citizen merely because he or she
> doesn't like their race, gender, or age. Instead of calling a tribunal to intervene and issuing
> fines, it is more efficient to spread knowledge of the abusers' actions and let the community
> refuse to do any business with them or assist them in other ways.


I find social pressure to be revolting. I love people, and I see no need for it.

Can you give me an example of a kind of abuse that would require social pressure?

I bet you will find that all cases can be handled by ignoring the person or shooting them if they are trespassing on your clearly marked "No Trespassing" private property.

Here in the Third World, there are no zoning laws, so if neighbor puts pig shit, noisy male rooster, karaoke at 120db, etc.. in their yard, then I am screwed. I don't like it, but I admit it caused me to not even contemplate wasting money on buying a small lot. Instead I rent, so I can move if something develops that I don't like. I realize now this is much more free market than the system of westerners who bind themselves in delusions of perfection (bubbling underneath is all the reality, then they are shocked when it rises to the surface, yet they still continue to think they can achieve a Utopian society).

I kind of like it like here in Third World now, it is more real.

So my views have been highly influenced by my experience here, although I always sort of leaned this way my entire life and perhaps I don't know why. I guess because I love freedom and thus peer pressure feels so limiting and irrational. It is not like peer pressure actually works, but yet the westerners continue to delude themselves and ignore the crap that seeps out of their Utopian cartoon life. Or they try to blame the crap on each other (i.e. the false war between various political positions) or on other things. In reality, all humans have the same shared goals, which is to prosper and be happy. If we stop making the same stupid mistake of deluding ourselves on Utopian fantasies, then we could stop feeding the beast of our own enslavement.

> Again, in a pack style of social organization, this is how discipline for optimal survival
> of the group tends to operate. Ostracism from the group often means certain death in the animal kingdom.

Yeah maybe I am trying to get rid of that irrational survival mechanism that no longer applies with the principle of maximum division-of-labor.

> The neoconservatives (Rothschilds and their ilk) would prefer human organization to be
> like that of bees. Clone-like slave workers serving a super elite oligarchy.

Agreed, I don't believe work should be monotonic drudgery, instead I think it should be inspiring, creative, and dignified.

I hope you noted the key phrase in my summary of my "ant like" model for Copute, where I said the individual ants become empowered by the network. Each human "ant" is able to fully leverage the network as their massive external memory and extended senses.

> Their ideological writers, like Strauss, the so-called father of neoconservatism, claim nature
> supports their survival of the fittest (real translation: most rapacious) attitude and the
> absence of any general code of morality (e.g. golden rule),

They believe in a zero-sum game, where the pie shrinks or doesn't increase, and thus they gain by stealing. I believe in expanding the pie by increasing degrees-of-freedom and thus increasing knowledge and prosperity. Unfortunately, people can't seem to get away from their arcane pack/tribe instincts, and so they always slip back into the same Utopian BS. That is why I am doing Copute, so they do not realize they are in the "ant like" network, they just reap the benefits.

My morality is rational. If I decrease your freedom or truly hurt you, I decrease mine and hurt myself too.

> yet they stand on
> ideological quick-sand using incorrect arguments on evolution and fitness.
> They can't grasp that millions of years evolution leading to homosapiens
> has created a species that is best adapted to using its large neocortex for adaptability,
> diversity, open communication, and learning - that is the resiliency that allowed it to
> become the dominant species on the planet. This force of human nature is so powerful
> that it cannot be subdued even with their centuries of meddling and attempts to pacify
> natural urges for autonomy with drugs, entertainment, and a hologram society.
> That's why, in desperation, people like Ray Kurzweil, fantasize of a way to split humans into two genetic castes.

Agreed on that. The humans aren't dumb in the network, it is just that the free market looks robotic if you are watching it work, e.g. watching ants do their actions, but then at the end we see the 20 foot mud castle art result, and we realize there is intelligence in there.

From the top level, the ants look dumb, i.e. free markets look disordered or uncorrelated to their final result, but I the participants in the network don't view themselves that way. And we will not see ourselves as dumbed down by a network that empowers us to maximize our knowledge.

===================================
===================================
===================================

I am not saying we don't need each other. I would like to see us lean on each other more for love, knowledge, and prosperity, not just when we need to mess with people in the group. Wouldn't that be nice that we came together for positive reasons, and not enforcement reasons?

> Here is an example. Most small groups, communities, or tribes tend to
> rely on central water sources whether it is a fresh water lake or a river
> source. The survival of the group depends on access to this resource.
> If someone deliberately pollutes this source so that it can no longer be
> used without risk of grave illness or death, then the group has no choice
> but to force the offender to permanently stop or leave the area. I am not
> talking about social conformity for the sake of "fitting in" and looking
> and acting like everyone else. This is about survival of the group which
> can manifest in various ways.

You don't need groupwise "peer pressure" for that. One person in the community can shoot the person and then it is finished. Assuming the offending party wouldn't listen to common sense from a few of his neighbors. Also if it is a corporation doing it, then the community might have to organize temporarily if they can't drive the result via boycott.

I am not worried about people wrongly shooting each other, because when everyone is armed, those who shoot unjustly will be shot by the rest.

There is a very important distinction I want you to appreciate here. The peer pressure is not easy to attain. You have to risk you own life, so your judgment of support from the peers has a very high bar. This keeps peer pressure from degrading into that Utopian nonsense and browbeating crap.

Why are people so afraid of being armed and responsible? Because it is easier to suck up to the tit of socialism and be mind programmed by TV. Ignorance is easy. Responsibility is difficult.


> The problem here is that our assumptions on the nature of the hypothetical
> group/community are different. Also, you assume that without a basic
> structure of acceptable behavior some form of anarchy will not occur. We
> have no human example of that, so it shouldn't be assumed.

We have proof of it. It is the 1800s, when the USA was the fastest growing and most prosperous nation ever seen on the face of this earth.

> Constant
> chaos in a group lowers its survival chances.

USA wouldn't have made it this far without that firm foundation of chaos in the 1800s. Now we've pretty much exhausted it. Those who avoid going back to it, are going to perish and suffer Utopian eugenics. Those who go back to high entropy are going to survive and breed.

> Even the most simple
> hunter gatherer communities still found to exist in their natural state in
> the early to mid 20th century had a basic sense of acceptable behavior.

Yes pack instinct was important then. But now in the knowledge age (where physical issues are insignificant compared to knowledge disparity) it is a liability.

> The essence of rules vs. no rules in this general debate is a matter of
> degree not kind. Rejecting authoritarianism and centralization does not
> require one to be an anarchist.

Anarchism has a wrong meaning for most people. Actually high entropy means freedom and prosperity, not mayhem and destruction.

> Since humans first walked this planet, I
> guarantee you that this issue has been and always will be that of a
> pendulum rather than an on/off switch.

The off is getting orders-of-magnitude less off on each swing, because the value of knowledge is rising orders-of-magnitude higher than the value of physical locality.

We are about to see a massive transformation. We already are. These programmers are earning $150,000+ per year while the rest are unemployable due to lack of knowledge skills.

> I understand your excellent examples of life in the Third World and how
> that mostly unregulated society is preferable and more sustainable than
> the way things are done in the U.S. As Catherine Austin Fitts says, the
> empire has created too many artificial layers of complexity, that gives
> them more control and more ways to steal wealth.

Almost all of it is friction and not helping. I can not think of one practical example that requires a government or groupwise social action.

It can all be done with private capitalism and the annealing of choice.

Mass hysteria or "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds":

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/t108p15-global-warming-nonsense#4679

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4104&cpage=3#comment-367944

Shelby wrote:

As for social engineering, arguments for inheritability of IQ could lead to government regulation of reproduction.

If IQ is inheritable (regardless of financial support) and a determinant of abilities that impact evolutionary outcomes, then the ability to impregnate as many (smart) women as possible would be an evolutionary advantage. I think there has been some discussion in past that other factors are more important than IQ above a certain threshold, e.g. 115 - 130 or so, thus it may not be necessary to impregnate a very smart woman.

My experience thus far (age 46), is my IQ has tested some where in the range of 130 - 140, I thrice impregnated someone whose IQ is probably in the 100 - 105 range. The kids' IQ seems to be very close to mine, perhaps 10 points lower. So in terms of evolution, perhaps the IQ of the mate is not as important as the ability to impregnate as many women as possible.

Right now, I could impregnate a different woman every week, if that was what I thought was best for all parties involved.

I am doubting any single statistic is an evolutionary determinant. If there was one dominant metric of evolutionary outcome, then knowledge wouldn't exist because everything would be static. Remember in the blog about software engineering, we concluded that software is the encoding of knowledge and that is why software is not like other engineering, because the software product is never static and finished.

Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem tells us that without infinite samples, we will have aliasing error w.r.t. some perspective, in a world of several billion different situations, e.g. esr can't fix the plumbing on my neighbor's house (nor impregnate her) with his 160 IQ, because it isn't efficient (free market) for him to be every where and do everything. We must try to remember that each of our perspectives is flawed as a general model for society-- nature requires diversity and dynamism for the free market and knowledge to function.

Applying those concepts, I can conclude that collectivism of any form (especially insurance) is guaranteed gridlock. Problem with insurance is that the group should only pay for the damages collectively as they occur, not as some model over time that guarantees failure, e.g. any savings pool can't be invested with guarantees without bonds, and yet bonds destroy the free market. I have gone into this in great detail else where.

Suffice it to say, that all forms of futures contracts inhibit the fitness of the free market. Ditto IQ as a contract of future performance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395214n&tag=segementExtraScroller;housing

See at the 3:04 point in the video, the kid is visualizing the structure of 3 x 3 x 3 = 27, but visualizing the number 3 as a triangle, the 3 x 3 is a (yellow) triangle on each corner of a (red) triangle. Then 3 x 3 x 3 is a (green) triangle on each corner of a (yellow) triangle, which is on each corner of a (red) triangle.

The interesting thing is that he is memorizing numbers not as words, but as geometric shapes. Thus he formulating a generative structure of the mathematical concept. I would be very interested to see how he visualizes the structure of the derivation (or pattern in the number) of PI, which enables him to recite the digits.

I read his also explained how to do multiplication in your head using intersection of lines:

http://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/10006.1.shtml



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK_Y0VhjWlY

This is nothing new. I knew this method when I was Grade 3. Drawing lines is mimic the process of digits multiplying. This case is 21x13, in the form of Binomial theorem it is (20+1)x(10+3) which can be expanded as 20*10 + (20*3 + 10*1) + 1*3, in another form it is 2*100 + (6 + 1)*10 + 3 = 273. This is same process how the video shows adding each digit unit together. Drawing lines could be funny for kids who are trying to learn multiplying, however, it is useless while applying to big numbers.

Interesting, but I can do that faster in my head by breaking it into parts:

22 x 10 = 220 + 22 x 3 = 220 + 66 = 286

=============
I can write backwards and visualize complex nested geometric dimensions as he does here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBW4S9xcTOk&feature=player_detailpage#t=138s

But what I cannot do is memorize a long sequential list:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395226n&tag=segementExtraScroller;housing

Rather I can memorize a pattern that I can see all at one time. It is this lack of exceptional memory capabilities, which has me scoring lower on IQ tests. That is why I say my IQ is very high (probably genuis, i.e. 140s to 160s) in the generative essense realm (Math visualization), but my average memory capabilities hamstrings me so that I tend to score 120s to 130s on IQ.

There is a photo of me as a baby disassembling things and reassembling them, similar to Jake and the cereal box photo. Also my mother said I was the only kid she ever heard of that disassembled all of his toys after quickly getting bored of playing with them. I worked for Tom Hedges who had this same photographic memory, and he said I had a special talent. I remember I fixed a bug in Mark Zimmer's (another genius) code with unraveling the grain, that was particularly convoluted. I am very good with complex nested relationships.

For example, I can think faster than what he is explaining here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmMghIiOQ10

200 smartest ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mjIO5YVaxo

===============
Here is an interesting IQ test problem, which demonstrates my IQ. You can draw 4 lines and each line must begin where the prior one started. Connect all the 9 dots.

* * *
* * *
* * *

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W07ADwmuj8A

Here is how I reasoned about the solution.

1. If I start at a dot and intersect 2 new dots per line, I get 9 dots. But the problem is there is no pattern where lines can start and end at dots, where the last line does not end at an already intersected dot. Thus the last line only intersects 1 new dot. Thus I conclude the only possible solution must include lines that don't always end on a dot. I studied the rules again and conclude that is not prevented by the rules.
   
2. Any first line that intersects 3 dots and does not end on a dot, will only allow a 2nd line that intersects 2 dots, or vice versa, this is because all the lines that can intersect more than one dot either run parallel or perpendicular to each other.
   
3. Thus the only possible solution would have to use a starting line that intersects three or two dots and does not end on a dot, and at least one line intersects 3 new dots and the others 2 new dots. You can reverse the order of the lines to get the pattern that starts with line that intersects only 2 dots.
   
   

==========
Btw, here is an impossible one that "nobody could solve", which I solved just now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_999734&v=ODtwehGzoLM&src_vid=xu_V-Uv6ykY&feature=iv

The rules says the lines can't cross, but it doesn't say that they can't meet at the same junction box, thus:

Code:

O---|---|---|
O---V---V---V
O---|---|---|

In the above we are not connecting houses to each other, rather connection from the junction box to the next house. Okay so I cheated, but as the video points out there is no solution unless there is hole. The Junction box serves as a hole.

We were producing what become Corel Painter, the world's most popular commercial natural media painting software (the one you use a pressure tablet with and originally was distributed in a real 1 gallon paint can):

http://tribbit.com/tomhedges